MASTER 


\ 


NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  91-80249-12 


MICROFILMED  1991 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  1 7,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


PHILLIMORE,  JOHN 


TITLE: 


ILLE  EGO 


PLACE: 


LONDON 

DA  TE : 

1920 


L 


».t 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 

DIBLIOCRAPHICMTrROFORMTARnFT 


Master  Negative  U 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 

BKS/PROO   Books 
F 

+ 


FUL/BIB   NYCG91-B75723         Acquisitions 
FIN  ID  IAUG87-B5870  -  Record  1  of  1  -  Record  added  today 


NYCG-PT 


I0:NYCG91-B75723    RTYP:a 
CC:9124   BLTram      OCF: 
CP:nyu     L:eng     INT: 
PC:r      P0:1991/1920 


ST:p  FRN 

CSC:  MOD 

GPC:  BIO 

REP:  CPI 


0 


DM: 


RR: 


MS 
SNR 
FIC 
FSI 
COL 


0 
0 


EL 
ATC 
CON 
ILC 
EML 


AD:08-21-91 
UD:08-21-91 


MEI:1    11:0 
GEN:    BSE: 


HMD:      OR:     POL: 

010  2211393 

040  NNCi:cNNC 

050  0  PA6826^b.P5 

100  10  Phillimore,  John  Swinnerton,{:dl873- 

245  10  Ille  ego^h[inicrofor(n];i:bVirgil  and  Professor  Richmond, ^cby  J.  S.  Phill 


imore. 


260  0 

300 

500 


London, t:bH.  Milford,  Oxford  university  press, t^cl920 
24  p.^c23  cm. 


On  the  authenticity  of  four  lines  which,  in  some  manuscripts,  precede 
the  first  line  of  Aeneis  I.  ' 

tZ   in  J!^^"^^"^'  ^liffe  Legh,^dl881-tClassics  and  the  scientific  mnd. 
600  00  Virgil. ^tA^neis. 


LOG 


RLIN 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM     SIZE: r3_£.WvK\ 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA   "^ 


IIA;   IB  J  IIB 


REDUCTION     RATIO: //^ 


DATE     FILMED: 5V/^/fi/__     INITIALS      /^  CD 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  pFiI^LICAtIONS  TMC  WOODnRrnnF7FT 


r 


Association  for  information  and  image  iManagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue.  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring.  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2        3        4         5        6         7        8         9        10       11       12       13       14       15   mm 


T 


TTT 


Inches 


1.0 

1^   |2.8 

Itt 

■tUlft 

1.4 

2.5 
22 

I.I 

2.0 
1.8 

1.6 

1.25 

TTT 


1 


MPNUFRCTURED  TO  RUM  STPNDPRDS 
BY  fiPPLIED  IMRGE,    INC. 


ILLE    EGO 


VIRGIL   AND 


PROFESSOR   RICHMOND 


By 


J.    S.    PHILLIMORE 


Uerum  ubi  nulla  mouet  stabikm  fallacia  Nisum — Ciris 


OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON      EDINBURGH      GLASGOW      NEW  YORK 
TORONTO    MELBOURNE    CAPETOWN    BOMBAY 

HUMPHREY  MILFORD 

I^30 


ILLE    EGO 
■    Virgil  and  Professor  Richmond 


I LLE    EGO 


VIRGIL   AND 


PROFESSOR    RICHMOND 


By 


J.  S.  PHILLIMORE 


Uerum  ubi  nulla  mouet  stabilem  fallacia  Nisum. — Ciris 


OXFORD     UNIVERSITY     PRESS 
LONDON:    HUMPHREY   MILFORD 

MCMXX 


ILLE    EGO 

Virgil  and  Professor  Richmond 

In  his  inaugural  address^  to  the  Humanity  Class  at 
Edinburgh,  Prof.  Richmond  refers  to  'a  recent  attempt 
to  drag  in  the  ego  of  Virgil  into  the  very  first  words  of 
his  final  work,  an  attempt  the  frustration  of  which  will 
suggest  to  us  some  considerations  illustrative  of  the  science 
of  Humanity,  and  provide  a  brief  example  of  the  method  \ 
A  wary  reader  will  immediately  be  on  the  alert  when 
he  sees  this.  The  words  *  method'  and  *  science  of  Humanity* 
are  danger  signals.  We  know  what  sins  are  committed 
against  reason  in  their  name.  TrapawXija-ioy  yap  (paiucTai 
fiaOrj/xaTLKOV  re  inOavoXoyovvTos  dwoSex'^aOaL  Kai  prjTOpLKov 
d7ro8€i^€L9  d7raLT€Lv,  And  when  an  inquiry  proposed  as 
an  example  of  method  concerns  itself  with  a  matter  so 
intrinsically  interesting  as  the  exordium  of  the  Aeneid, 
Mr.  Richmond's  arguments  deserve  a  close  scrutiny. 

The  editor  of  Virgil  for  the  O.  C.  T.  series  restores  the 
lines 

*  tl/e  egOy  qui  quondam  gracili  modulatns  auena 
carmen,  et  egressus  siluis  nicina  coegi 
ni  quamuis  anido  parcrent  arua  colono, 
gratuni  opus  agricolis,  at  nunc  horrentia  Martis  '— 

to  the  position  which  Nisus  was  in  the  habit  of  saying  they 
had  occupied  before  Varius'  recension.  This  is  what  Mr.  R. 
calls  'an  attempt  to  drag  in  the  ego  of  Virgil';    he  has 

*    Classics  and  the   Scientific   Mind,     Edinburgh,   James   Thin, 
Publisher  to  the  University,  191 9.  , 


6  ILLE  EGO  :   Virgil 

satisfied  himself  that  he  has  '  frustrated '  this  attempt  in 
five  pages,  and  thereby  provided  a  brief  example  of  method. 
The  claim  to  brevity  may  be  allowed.  Henry,  on  whom 
Mr.  Richmond  passes  sentence  that  he  was  'of  brilliant 
but  imperfectly  balanced  judgement',  devoted  no  less  than 
ii8  pages  to  the  vindication  of  these  verses.  If  there  is 
one  quality  which  distinguished  Henry,  it  was  his  stickling 
for  proofs  dialectically  tested  and  a  decisive  weight  of 
evidence :  it  is  a  superficial  estimate  which  confuses 
whimsical  excursions  of  personality  with  ill-balanced 
judgement.  Deep  in  Virgil,  as  hardly  another  modern 
has  ever  been,  Henry  was  a  cautious  critic.  Re-read  his 
rigorous  and  massive  reasoning,  and  you  will  be  tempted 
to  say  in  haste  that  the  '  method '  which  Mr.  R.'s  pages 
briefly  exemplify  is  the  gay  process  of  iguoratio  elenchi. 
But  then  there  is  a  sentence  of  his  on  p.  24  which  might 
give  colour  to  the  conclusion  that  his  method  is  pure 
paradox,  and  his  object  to  make  fools  of  his  audience. 

*  First  words  to  the  ancient  mind^  far  more  than  to  ours^ 
were  words  of  omen,  and  in  a  sense  signature,^  But  it  is 
just  the  words  of  signature  which  Mr.  R.  is  athetizing ! 
What  is  left  of  a  signature  when  you  suppress  all  indica- 
tion of  authorship  ?  The  rest  is  irrelevance  :  for  what  has 
the  question  of  omen  or  non-omen  to  do  with  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  quatrain?  There  was  nothing  ill-omened  in 
alluding  to  yourself  in  an  exordium.  Ovid,  Amores,  ii.  i 
proves  that — 

*hoc  quoque  composui  Paelignis  natus  aquosis, 
ille  ego  nequitiae  Naso  poeta  meae.' 

So  does  the  author  ot  Ciris,  I  know  no  reason  why 
what  was  well-omened  for  a  short  poem  should  not  also 
be  well-omened  for  a  long  (and  even  a  final)  poem. 


and  Professor  RICHMOND  7 

What,  then,  remains  of  the  *  omen '  and  '  signature ' 
argument  ? 

Next,  but  still  among  preliminary  considerations,  I  must 
quote  more  from  p.  24 : 

The  traditional  first  words  o{\h^^^r\^\di,Armauirumqtie^ 
are  familiar  friends  even  to  the  least  classical  memory  ; 
they  are  constantly  quoted  by  ancient  writers  to  indicate 
by  allusion  the  poem  itself  whose  subject  they  epitomize  ; 
and  they  have  the  further  claim  to  this  position  that 
they  combine  in  one  phrase  allusion  to  the  first  words  of 
both  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  firji^iy,  the  wrath  of  Achilles, 
and  dpSpa,  the  wanderer  Odysseus. 

(By  what  method  can  arma  be  made  into  an  allusion 
to  /jLTJpi^?  It  has  been  a  commonplace  of  Virgilian  criticism 
for  fifteen  hundred  years  that,  in  so  far  as  the  Aeneid  is  an 
epic  of  battle,  the  poet  utilizes  the  Iliad;  and  arma 
probably  ^  means  *  battle ' ;  but  what  is  there  in  the  battle- 
books  of  the  Aeneid  at  all  answerable  to  the  sulking  of 
Achilles  ?)     But,  to  continue : 

The  Aeneid  is  an  Odyssey  for  six  books  to  which 
an  Iliad  in  six  books  succeeds.  Ask  a  schoolboy  the 
first  words  of  the  Aeneid  and  he  will  know  them  ;  but 
turn  to  the  Oxford  text  of  Virgil,  sent  out  from  that 
great  authoritative  press  since  the  year  1900  to  be  a 
Latin  bible  for  schools  and  universities,  and  you  will 
find  a  different  state  of  affairs.  Arma  uirumque  has 
become  the  fifth  verse  and  lost  all  significance. 

I  hold  no  brief  for  the  Clarendon  Press  :  they  may  have 
been  hideously  mistaken  in  committing  their  edition  of 
Virgil  to  Sir  Arthur  Hirtzel  rather  than  to  a  schoolboy  : 
if  they  imagined  that  they  were  issuing  Virgil  *  as  a  Latin 
bible  \  they  would  not  strain  at  lesser  blunders.     But  this 

^  Probably:  though  opinion  has  been  much  divided.  I  give 
Mr.  R.  the  benefit  of  the  doubt^for  if  artna  =  orrXn  the  disparity  with 
\ir)Vii  is  even  more  glaring. 


8 


ILLE   EGO:   Virgil 


appeal  to  the  schoolboy  is  suspiciously  like  the  method 
of  Macaulay,  the  bluster  of  prejudice,  and  the  voices  of 
a  minority  silenced  by  brass  and  wind.  It  is  our  old  friend 
*  We-ahvays'thonght  *.  Test  it  by  analogy :  ask  a  schoolboy 
(if  schoolboys  still  read  the  Elegy)  with  what  lines  Gray 
introduces  the  Epitaph,  and  he  will  know  them : 

*  Approach  and  read  (for  thou  canst  read)  the  lay 

Graved  on  the  stone  beneath  yon  aged  thorn/ 

But  an  editor  of  the  Elegy  (whether  or  not  as  part  of  an 
English  bible)  will  be  bound  to  show,  by  whatever  typo- 
graphical means  he  may  choose,  that  Gray  originally  had 
another  stanza  after  that : 

*  There  scatter' d  oft,  the  earliest  of  the  year, 

By  hands  unseen,  are  showVs  of  violets  found  ; 
The  redbreast  loves  to  build  and  warble  there, 
And  little  footsteps  lightly  print  the  ground/ 

Ask  a  schoolboy  (if  schoolboys  read  Wordsworth)  the 
first  words  oi Dion,  and  he  will  know  them: 

'Serene,  and  fitted  to  embrace. 
Where'er  he  turned,  a  swanlike  grace,' 
&c. 

But  it  is  an  editor's  business  to  record — 

*  Fair  is  the  swan,  whose  majesty,  prevailing 
O'er  breezeless  water  on  Locarno's  lake,' 
&c. 

although  these  lines  were  afterwards  proscribed.  Whether 
these  two  poets  were  well  or  ill  advised  in  their  after- 
thoughts, is  another  question  ;  I  am  merely  showing  by 
modern  instances  that  editors  neglect  their  office  if  they 
accept  for   standard  that    last   dilution   of  literature,   the 


and  Professor  RICHMOND  9 

school-book.  And  here  it  will  not  be  out  of  place  to 
quote  from  an  admirable  palinode  of  resipiscence  by 
Dr.  VoUmer  {quod  minime  reris)  of  Munich  ;  ^ 

Aber  wir  miissen  noch  die  Frage  aufwerfen :  wie  ist 
es  gekommen  und  moglich  gewesen,  dass  die  Meinung, 
die  ganze  oder  fast  die  ganze  Appendix  Vergiliana  sei 
unecht,  sich  bilden  und  behaupten  konnte?  Wir  konnen, 
das  ist'  die  Losung,  hier  einmal  den  verhangnisvollen 
Einfluss  der  Schule  auf  die  literarische  Tradition  mit 
Handen  greifen.  Untergegangen  ist  die  ganze  gelehrte 
Literatur,  die  sich  an  Vergil's  Namen  und  Werke 
anschloss,  von  Hyginus  und  Asconius  bis  zur  Vita 
Suetoni;  was  sich  erhalten  hat,  sind  die  spdrlichen 
entstellten  und  verwdsserten  Reste  all  dieser  Arbeit^ 
aufgenonimen  in  und  verarbeiiet  fiir  cine  Reihe  .  von 
erkldrenden  Schjtlausgaben. 

Et  Saul  inter  prophetas.  Dr.  Vollmer's  contention  con- 
cerns primarily  the  Minor  Works ;  but  it  is  also  true  th^t 
in  every  respect  the  body  of  Virgilian  lore  has  been 
disjected  and  reduced  to  suit  the  measure  of  Mr.  R.*s 
arbiter,  the  schoolboy.  And  the  fact  stated  is  incontest- 
able, for  the  names  of  the  critics  who  wrote  on  Virgil 
have  been  recorded ;  and  of  this  mass  of  writing  no  more 
than  a  meagre  fraction  has  been  preserved  in  Aulus  Gellius, 
Macrobius,  Servius,  Donatus :  so  that  Mr.  R.  is  under  an 
(p.  26)  extraordinary  delusion  when  he  says 

The  story,  like  the  verses,  is  feeble;  but  the  later 
commentators  rescued  both,  for  the  reason  that  every 
scrap  of  Virgil  legend,  true  or  false,  interested  them. 

If  so,  they  dissembled  or  controlled  their  interest 
marvellously  well :  of  Caecilius  Epirota,  Virgil's  con- 
temporary,    they    have    rescued    nothing;     of    Hyginus, 

*  Die  kleineren  Gedichte  Vergils,  Munich,  1907,  p.  372. 
ts»7  A   3 


JO 


ILLE  EGO:    Virgil 


and  Professor  RICHMOND 


II 


Modestus,  Comutus,  Asper,  Probus,  a  few  dozen  lines 
altogether.  Every  scrap  of  Virgil  legend !  It  is  to  be 
hoped  that  the  reformed  Edinburgh  School  of  Humanity 
will  not  disdain,  amongst  more  recondite  fields  of  inquiry, 
to  research  into  Ribbeck*s  Prolegomena^  or  Nettleship's 
Introductions — or  even  Teuffel-Schwabe's  History  of  Latin 
Literature,  If  by  *  legend '  is  implied  fable,  even  the 
interpolated  codices  of  Donatus  contain  but  very  few  scraps 
of  such ;  and,  almost  without  exception,  the  added  stories 
bear  a  plainly  mediaeval  character.  (See  the  interpolations 
in  5*  as  exhibited  in  Brummer's  app.  crit.) 

Besides  the  school-book,  there  is,  in  this  case,  another 
very  important  factor  to  remember;  officialism.  Virgil 
was  a  Government  author ;  Varius  and  Tucca  edited  his 
works  under  direct  imperial  commission.  Their  edition 
was  the  official  text,  the  Authorized  Version.  Now  we 
know  from  our  own  literary  history  what  prestige  can  be 
given  to  a  book  by  Government  imprimatur »  There  are 
many  persons  to  whom  the  Douai-Rheims  version  of  the 
Scriptures  is  hardly  now  known ;  they  would  be  hurt  if 
you  suggested  that  they  were  illiterate.  But  it  is  only 
lately  that  any  one  can  whisper  a  word  against  the  Jacobean 
Version  without  risking  penalties.  We  have  our  *  official  * 
truth ;  our  *  official  *  view  of  history  ;  our  *  official '  lives  of 
public  persons, — it  may  be  a  poet,  as  Wordsworth,  or 
a  sovereign,  as  Victoria.  It  is  the  business  of  Officialdom 
to  see  that  nothing  escapes,  and  anecdotes  have  hard 
work  to  slip  through  the  cordon  ;  even  harmless  anecdotes, 
for  a  solemnity  gathers  round  great  names.  The  genius  of 
officialdom  is  suspicious  even  of  curiosity :  a  casual  tourist 
becomes  a  Guy  Faux  if  he  is  found  prying  about  West- 
minster.    And  the  early  Principate  had   many  exposed 


nerves.  Of  officialism  in  the  Virgil  tradition  we  have  one 
clinching  example :  the  fate  of  the  laudes  Galli  in  Georg. 
Bk.  iv.  No  sane  critic,  one  might  say,  no  critic  not 
congenitally  disqualified  for  estimating  a  point  of  common 
human  psychology,  can  imagine  that  the  fact  reported  by 
Servius  was  fiction.  (Caecilius  Epirota's  direct  witness 
on  this  particular  point  would  have  been  priceless.)  Yet 
not  a  line,  not  a  syllable  of  the  passage  has  been  allowed 
to  survive.  And  so  it  was  with  all  the  Opera  Minora. 
Survive  they  did,  but  only  to  slink  about  as  poor  relations. 
The  schoolboy  knew  them  not.  Hence  the  weakness  of 
their  manuscript  tradition. 

So  the  authenticity  of  our  four  verses  is  no  more  dis- 
proved by  the  Authorized  Version  suppressing  them  than 
is  the  existence  of  the  laudes  Galli.  All  our  manuscripts 
of  Virgil  represent  the  controlled  tradition,  the  Palatine 
text ;  officially  sacred,  like  the  *  Annexed  Book ' ;  true  *  in 
a  Parliamentary  sense',  like  the  answers  of  Ministers  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  But  it  would  be  very  simple-minded 
to  take  it  for  the  whole  truth. 

The  *  greater  scholars'  whom  Mr.  K.  alleges  to  have 
tacitly  repudiated  the  lines  were  only  publishers  and  book- 
sellers. An  argument  from  the  silence  of  lost  authors  is 
surely  rather  a  tall  order.  If  Donatus,  Servius,  Priscian,  &c.i 
cither  give  the  story  about  Nisus  or  quote  the  four  lines 
without  reservation,  to  them  an  argument  from  silence 
does  apply :  if  they  mention  no  refutation  of  Nisus,  then 

*  tacent ;   satis  laudant ' 

Preliminaries  thus  cleared,  we  can  proceed  to  pose  the 
main  question  fpr  discussion. 
Somebody  wrote  these  four  verses.     Who?    Virgil  pj 


12 


ILLE  EGO:   Virgil 


another?     If  another,  who  was  the  forger  and  what  was 
his  motive  ?         ^ 

Mr.  R.  replies  (p.  a8) : 

.  The  author  of  this  exercise  I  conceive  to  have  been 
Nisus  himself,  .the  schoolmaster,  whose  legend  is  our 
only  ancient  source  for  the  verses,  and  whose  word 
would  be  of  no  value  for  any  compositions  but  his  own. 

The  reasoning  of  the  last  sentence  is  dark  to  me, 
I  confess ;  but  let  that  pass.  We  have  Mr.  R.  admitting 
that  he  can  suggest  ho  other  author  for  the  verses  than 
Nisus.  The  issue  is  simplified.  What  then  was  the  man's 
motive  ? 

It  is  easy  enough  to  conjecture  the  occasion  for  the 
spurious  lines.  The  fourth  book  of  the  Georgics  does 
end  with  a  modest  autobiographical  note,  a  mere  sub- 
scription in  verse,  by  which  the  poet  claims  as  his  own 
the  first,  second,  and  third  books  preceding  and  also  his 
earlier  bucolic  Eclogues,  whose  first  verse  he  here  quotes 
in  his  last.  In  a  complete  edition  of  Virgil,  such  as 
would  not  appear  till  long  after  the  separate  publication 
of  the  Aeneid,  this  subscription  would  fall  immediately 
before  the  first  verse  of  the  Aeneid,  and  might  suggest, 
either  to  an  editor  or  a  student,  an  exercise  in  imitation, 
which  should  purport  to  link  up  the  Aeneid  also  with 
the  rounded  whole  of  the  rest. 

One  can  hardly   restrain  a    smile,  to   see    Mr.    R.   so 
anxiously  limiting  the  significance  of 

^illo   Vergilium  vie  tempore  dulcis  alebat 
Parthenope ' 

to  suit  his  contention  that  it  was  not  in  character  with 
Virgil's  known  modesty  to  write  a  personal  envoi  to  *the 
Aeneid.  Therefore  it  is  carefully  explained  to  us  that  an 
envoi  at  the  beginning  and  an  envoi  at  the  end  of  a  poem 
are  quite  quite  different  things ;  and  will  we  please  be 
good  children  and  not  too  inquisitive  ? 


and  Professor  RICHMOND 


13 


But  one  must  be  inquisitive  about  what  is  professed 
as  an  example  of  method,  and  I  must  beg  leave  to  ask: 
(i)  What  is  there  less  'modestly  autobiographical'  in  the 
ille  ego  lines  than  in  those  words  of  signature 

*  illo   Vergilium  me  tempore  '  ? 

(2)  What  grounds  are  there  for  saying  that  a  complete 
edition  of  Virgil  only  appeared  'long  after'  19  B.C.? 

(3)  Why  should  the  need,  or  the  convenience,  of  an 
envoi  for  the  Aeneid  strike  a  reader  who  possessed  a 
one-volume  Virgil  more  forcibly  than  a  reader  who  had 
him  in  XYiq  format  of  a  collection  of  single  rolls? 

(4)  If  it  is  *  easy  to  conjecture '  that  the  envoi  subscriptio 
to  Georg,  iv  suggested  to  Nisus  an  envoi  prologue  to 
Aeneid  i,  does  not  that  imply  an  obvious  a  priori  fitness  ? 
Why  should  it  not  have  suggested  itself  to  Virgil  ? 

One  is  reminded  that  the  nineteenth  century  produced 
a  race  of  human  beings  who  believed  that  the  Culex  was 
*  written  up*  to  the  Gnat's  Epitaph,  which  alone  was  allowed 
to  be  Virgil ian. 

So  far,  then,  we  are  nothing  advanced  towards  a  solution 
of  the  problem,  as  defined  for  trial.  But  now  comes 
Mr.  R.'s  main  argument  against  Virgil's  and  for  Nisus* 
authorship.     It  may  be  reduced  under  four  heads : 

1.  The  h'terary  merit  of  the  verses, 

2.  Their  Latin ity» 

3.  The  worth  of  Nisus  as  an  authority. 

4.  The  evidence  of  Propertius* 

1.  Mr.  R.  finds  the  four  verses  less  than  neat,  Sir  A. 
Hirtzel  dubbed  them praeclarissimos.  The  matter  is  hardly 
worth  discussion.  Culex  may  contain  much  that  is  un- 
worthy of  Virgil,  and  yet  be  his  work.     The  opinion  of 


?4 


ILLE  EGO:    Virgil 


US  modern  grammatici  on  a  point  of  taste  will  decide 
nothing,  and  the  opinion  of  great  poets  is  divided.  Dryden, 
indeed,  denounced  them  ;  but  if  Spenser  and  Milton  imi- 
tated them,  the  verses  cannot  have  seemed  trashy  to 
Spenser  and  Milton.  However,  as  proof  or  disproof  cannot 
turn  merely  on  a  point  of  taste,  we  may  leave  it  at  that. 

2.  This  is  the  very  core  of  the  debate.  Here  it  is  not  a 
matter  of  likes  and  dislikes  but  a  question  capable  of  strict 
proof.  If  nothing  un- Augustan  can  be  found  in  the  verses, 
then  the  attack  on  Nisus*  statement  plainly  loses  force. 
•Pope  may  write  unlike  htmself,  on  occasion,  but  he  does 
not  write  like  Tennyson.  Here,  then,  Mr.  R.'s  statement 
must  be  closely  sifted,  line  by  line. 

(a)  It  will  at  once  be  seen  that  the  word  Martis  adds 
nothing  to  arma  except  a  slight  incongruity ;  for  the 
'  arms '  of  the  *  man  *  himself  were  not  so  much  of  Mars 
as  of  Vulcan. 

If  arma  Martis  is  tautology,  we  must  athetize  Eclogue 
X.  44: 

•  'nunc  insanus  amor  duri  me  Martis  in  armis'} 

For  the  rest  I  need  not  recapitulate  Henry's  argument 
for  taking  arma  as  warfare.  But  can  the  opening  of  the 
Authorized  Version  be  so  vastly  superior  if  the  first  word 
of  it  is  equivocal  ?     I  suppose  nobody  will  hesitate  what 

^ horrentia  Martis  arma* 

means,  or  fail  to  recognize  the  contrast  of  this  theme  with 
those  of  Bucolics  and  Georgics.  But  should  anybody  insist 
on  taking  arma  as  6n\a,  still  the  word  Martis  is  not 
amiss:  for  husbandmen  have  their  arma  too.  Operisque 
relinquunt  arma  sui  (Ov.  Met.  xi.  35). 

(b)  *  But  horrcntia  is  conventional.'     Of  course  it  is : 


and  Professor  RICHMOND 


IS 


most  of  the  epithets  in  Virgil  are.     Such  is  the  way  of 
Classicism.  • 

Rocks  are  hard,  skies  are  blue,  water  is  liquid,  wars  are 
cruel ; 

*bella,  horrida  bella*  {Aen,  vi.  86). 

'  Merely '  conventional,  may  be  questioned  :  for  in  contrast 
with  the  *  slender  oat '  and  the  Underwoods  of  Pastoral, 
the  humble,  homely,  local  utilities  of  Points  of  Husbandry, 
would  it  not  be  rather  unsymmetrical  if  the  new  and 
strange  {at  nunc)  subject  were  not  coloured  with  an  epithet, 
the  Iiorrible  fray  of  Battle  ? 

{c)  Then  what  is  the  distinction  between  the  words 
colono  (with  arua)  and  agricolis,  both  of  which  are  derived 
from  the  root  of  colere,  to  cultivate?  If  there  is  no 
distinction,  we  have  mere  pleonasm. 

Mr.  R.'s  blows  are  meant  for  Nisus,  but  they  fall  on 
Virgil.     What  about  this  ? 

'hiems  ignaua  colono  \ 
frigoribus  parto  agricolae  plerumque  fruuntur.' 

(Georg,  i.  299.) 

Anybody  who  cultivates  the  earth  \s  agricola ;  but  in 
the  north  of  Italy,  and  especially  for  the  generation  after 
Philippi,  the  most  conspicuous  among  the  landed  popula- 
tion were  the  coloni.  The  words  are  not  truly  synonymous : 
a  rustic  god  is  agricola  deus  (Tibull.  i.  i.  14);  but  you 
could  not  say  deus  colonus}  The  colonus  is  the  new  man, 
the  dispossessor,  the  planter  on  a  confiscated  farm ;  he  is 
a  harmsworthy  hustler  who  means  to  get  rich  quick,, 
and  has  a  notion  of  exploiting  the  land  pitilessly  (ante 
louem  nulli  subigebdnt  arua  coloni—Gtorg.  i.  125) :  he  \s 

*  Though  an  ox  can  be  called  ruricola  and  colonus  (Ov.  Met^ 
XV.  124,  142).  But  the  audacity  of  the  metaphor  is  in  itself  a  piece 
of  Pythagorean  pleading. 


i6 


ILLE  EGO:    Virgil 


Sturdily  ambitious   {hinc  laudevi   fortes  sperate   coloni — 

Georg.  ill.  388).   But  the  Georgics  find  favour  with  anybody 

who  lives  on  the  land  (gratum  opus  agricolis). 

(d)  How  can  the  poet  who. incites  the  husbandman  to 
'constrain  the  soil '  to  his  will,  properly  be  said  to  *  con- 
strain the  soil*  himself  for  the  husbandman's  use?  This 
is  possibly  Silver  Latin,  but  not  an  earlier  style. 

The  bungling  forger  betrayed  by  an  anachronism  !     In 

fact,  just  what  might  have  been  expected  of  Nisus,  the 

Schoolmaster.     Nowhere   are   Mr.  R.'s   frustrations  more 

unfortunate  than  here.    ,  Of  that  common  figure  by  which 

a  poet  is  said  to  do  himself  what  he  makes  his  persons  do, 

Henry  (p.  108)  happens  to  quote  only  an  example  from 

Martial;  and  it  is  commoner  in  Statius  than  others.^  These 

are  Silver  Authors,  but  did  Horace  ^  write  Silver  Latin? 

*  Turgidus  Alpinus  iugulat  dum  Menmona* 

{Sat.  i.  10.  36.) 
Furius  described,  not  performed,  the  killing  of  Memnon,  &c. 
Is  the  Sixth  Eclogue  Silver  Latin  ? 

*  Pasiphaen  niuei  solatiir  amore  iuuenci '  {EcL  vi.  46). 
Silenus  describes^  not  performs,  the  comforting  of  Pasiphae, 
just  as  in  w.  62,  (>'>» 

*  Phaethontiadas  musco  circumdat  amarae 
corticis  atque  solo  proceras  erigit  ainos' 

he  describes,  not  performs,  the  surrounding  and  uprearing. 

Is  the  Culex  Silver  Latin  ?     It  has  a  curious  development 

of  this  figure  (v.  29).     Did  the  author  of  the  *E7nTd(pio9 

Bmvo9  write  Silver  Latin  ? 

BfW  it^6fi€V€ 

Kal  avpiyy^9  irevx^  kol  dSea  -nopriv  SLfx^Xye  (81,  82). 

*  A  collection  of  exx.  in  Gronovius*  Diatribe,  chap.  xxii. 
'  Cf.  Sat.  ii.  5.  41. 


and  Professor  RICHMOND 


17 


{e)  Finally,  but  most  important,  could  Virgil  ever  have 
spoken  of  a  '  greedy  husbandman  *  [quamuis  ajiido 
colono)  ?  One  chief  moral  of  his  writings  on  husbandry 
is  that  the  tiller  of  the  soil  has  the  simplest  needs  and  is 
free  from  the  avarice  of  the  towns;  nowhere  does  he 
suggest  competition  for  profits.  But  this  view  of  the 
countryman  might  possibly  occur  to  a  townbred  man 
of  the  Silver  Age,  used  to  profiteering  market  gardeners. 

One  has  only  to  recall  Varro's  Res  Riisticae  to  refute 
this  notion  that  competition  for  profits  was  unknown  to 
the  Virgilian  race  of  countrymen,  and  invented  by  the 
degenerate  Silver  Age.  To  give  a  single  instance ;  ^ 
Varro's  two  Faliscan  soldiers,  who  averaged  10,000  ses- 
terces per  annum  for  their  honey  alone  and  '  could  afford 
to  wait  for  a  rise  of  prices '.     R.  R.  iii.  14.  10. 

*  Could  he  have  spoken  of  a  greedy  husbandman  ? ' 
One  does  not  require  any  special  *  sense  of  Virgil's 
economy  of  language  '  or  *  acquaintance  with  his  personal 
character'  (p.  29)  to  answer  this  question:  no  delicate 
inferences  are  needed  for  a  clear  case.     He  did. 

'  ilia  seges  demum  uotis  respondet  auari 
agricolae  '  {Georg.  i,  47). 

Auarus,  I  take  it,  is  a  harsher  word  than  auidus.     And 
if  parallel  passages  go  for  anything,  Ovid  echoed 

*  ut  quamuis  auido  parerent  arua  colono ' 

when  he  wrote 

'  frugibus  immensis  auidos  satiate  colonos ' 

\Fasiiu6']']). 

I  have  stuck  strictly  to  the  points  impugned  by  Mr.  R. ; 

« 

*  The  passage  was   made  famous  by  Virgil's  famous  echo  of  a 
phrase  in  it. 


i8 


ILLE   EGO:   Virgil 


and  Professor  RICHMOND 


19 


others  are  abundantly  illustrated  by  Henry.  What  is  left 
standing  of  the  assertion  that  the  four  verses  are  *  certainly 
not  Virgilian  in  diction  '  ? 

3.  Now  for  Nisus'  story.  This  otherwise  unknown 
Schoolmaster  flourished,  in  Nettleship's  opinion,  in  the 
age  of  Tiberius,  about  half  a  centur}'  after  Virgil's  death. 
The  grammatici  did  not  deal  in  higher  learning,  as 
a  rule,  and  his  word  would  have  weighed  little  in  his 
own  age  against  the  greater  scholars  who  accepted  anna 
jiirumqiie  without  demur.  Had  there  been  any  truth  in 
his  story  it  would  have  been  handed  down  to  us  on  far 
better  authority.  But  Nisus  only  claimed  to  have  it 
by  hearsay  from  unnamed  older  men  ;  and  evidently  did 
not  himself  read  the  verses  where  the  Oxford  editor  has 
printed  them.  He  says  expressly  that  Varius,  the  first 
editor,  corrected  the  beginning  by  the  removal  of  these 
verses.  Nor  does  he  categorically  assert  that  the  verses 
removed  were  by  Virgil. 

Poor  Nisus !  An  '  elementary  schoolmaster '  (p.  25), 
otherwise  unknown  \  and  he  had  the  temerity  to  persist 
in  recording  what  the  older  generation  told  him.  But  he 
is  not  quite  unknown,  since  Velius,  Charisius,  and  Priscian 
all  quote  him  as  an  authority  on  points  of  usage,  grammar, 
and  prthography.  *  Nisus  elegantcr '  says  Charisius,  citing 
his  opinion  on  mella  and  uina.  There  was  nothing  obscure 
about  him  to  them  ;  since  one  name  explained  his  identity, 
nobody  troubled  to  tell  us  his  other  ones.  He  was  a 
scholar,  as  the  word  grammaticns  indicates. 

In  what  sense  Mr.  R.  uses  the  term  *  Higher '  learning, 
I  know  not.  The  adjective  often  conveys  a  nuance  of 
euphemistical  negation.  People  smile  at  *  Higher  Criticism  \ 
'Higher  Thought',  *  Higher  Christianity*,  &c.,  because  in 
these  phrases  *  Higher '  denotes  the  esoteric  pretensions 
of  a  self-sufficient  coterie.  But  if  Mr.  R.  means  to  imply 
that  Nisus  was  talking  of  things  beyond  his  beat,  then  one 


must  ask  him  whence  he  derives  his  idea  oi  ^  grammaticus. 
He  quite  misconceives  the  competence  implied  by  the 
term.  It  is  surprising  that  any  man  who  had  read 
Suetonius'  de  Grammaticis  could  pen  the  paragraph  that 
I  have  quoted.     Just  recall  to  mind  the  famous 

Cato  grammaticns,  Latina  Siren ^ 
qui  solus  legit  et  facit  poetas^ 

and    imagine    anybody    telling    Cinna    and    Ticida    and 
Bibaculus   that  their  master  was  not  a  dealer  in  higher 
learning.     However,  instead  of  retailing  the  list  of  great 
Augustan  and  Tiberian  scholars  whom  Suetonius  chronicles 
as  grammatici,  it  will  suffice  to  summon  the  grammaticus 
or  philologus   described   by   Seneca    in   Epist,  Mor.   108. 
To  him  Virgil  or  Cicero  is  a  text  for  linguistic,  stylistic, 
historical,  or  literary  commentary  ;   he  traces  the  Ennian 
or  the  Homeric  influences  on  a  given  phrase,  &c.     This 
grammaticus  looks  like  a  real  person ;    he   is   about  con- 
temporary with  Nisus.     He  may  have  been  Nisus  himself. 
Seneca  slights  him  because  he  does  not  turn  his  Virgil  into 
flatulent  moralities.     But  he  i^  evidently  adequate  for  the 
functions  of  a  school  of  hautes  itudes — if  that  has  anything 
to  do  with  *  higher  learning*.     And  after  all,  what  was 
Nisus  ex  hypothesi  doing  ?    Not  deciding  some  fine  question 
of  scholarship,  but  merely  recording  what  the  last  genera- 
tion  had    told   him.     What   does   he  mean   by  seniores} 
Since  he  is  a  scholar,  and  the  academic  society  of  lecturers, 
librarians,  and  authors  was  fully  developed  under  Augustus, 
we  have  a  right  to  interpret  priores  as  the  men  of  letters 
of  the   last   generation.     And    since   Nisus   (Keil,    G.  Z. 
vii.  45)  floruit  shortly   after  Verrius   Flaccus,    who   was 
appointed  to  a  chair  at  the  Palatine  as  early  as  10  B.C., 


I 


\ 


20 


ILLE   EGO:   Virgil 


we  have  quite  a  short  and  easy  reach  for  oral  tradition. 
To  name  no  others,  old  Seneca  lived  on  till  A.D.  39,  bearing 
in  his  marvellous  memory  all  the  record  of  Augustan 
literary  history.  Nisus  may  easily  have  spoken  with  him. 
And  Mr.  R.  expects  us  to  believe  that  the  verses  were 
forged  in  that  age  !  ^ 


^  One  of  Suetonius'  remarks  has  received  less  attention 
than  it  deserves.  Reconstructing  his  statement  by  the 
parallel  use  of  Donatus  (Brummer,  Vit.  Verg,  p.  11.  201) 
and  Philargyrius  (ibid.  p.  44,  106)  we  get  this : 


DonalHs, 
quamuis  igitur  multa 
pseudepigrapha,  id  est 
falsa  inscriptione, 
sub  alieno  nomine, 
sint  prolata 
ut  Thyestes  tragoedia 
huius  pcetae  quam 
Varius  suo  nomine  edidit, 
et  alia  huius  modi ; 
tamen  bucolica  liquido 
Vergil  ii  esse  mini  me 
dubitandumst,  &c. 


Philarg.  L 

quamuis  igitur  multa 

alia 

inscriptione  sub  aliena 


sint  prolata 


et 


Varius  sub  nomine  suo  edidit 

tamen  bucolica  liquido 
Vergilii  esse  minime 
dubitandum 

Now  the  prevailing  colour  of  modern  criticism  has  been 
to  deny  to  Virgil  anything  but  the  official  works.  But 
Suetonius,  it  seems,  so  far  from  supposing  that  spurious 
writings  were  put  out  under  his  name,  states  quite  a 
different  thing  :  that  Virgil's  work  had  been  freely  pirated, 
naming  in  particular  the  Thyestes  which  Varius  claimed 
to  have  written.  Nobody  else,  says  Suetonius,  can  lay 
claim  to  the  Bucolics  ;  because  Virgil  explicitly  asserts 
his  authorship  in 

'carmina  qui  lusi  pastorum*,  &c. 

And  to  Suetonius  goes  back  the  catalogue  (see  Vollmer, 
op.  cit.)  which  allows  Culex,  Ciris,  Dirae,  &c.,  to  be 
Virgilian,  with  only  a  query  attached  to  Aetna, 

The  point  deserves  fuller  consideration  than  the  scope 
of  this  paper  permits 


and  Professor  RICHMOND 


21 


The  justice  of  Vollmer's  observations  (quoted  above) 
once  realized,  such  statements  as  that  *  greater  scholars 
accepted  arma  idriimqiie  without  demur '  and  *  Had  there 
been  any  truth  in  the  story  it  would  have  been  handed 
down  to  us  on  far  better  authority',  have  the  bottom 
knocked  out  of  them.  Who  were  these  greater  scholars  ? 
And  what  do  we  know  of  their  opinion  on  the  matter? 
If,  as  is  usually  allowed,  Donatus  follows  Suetonius 
what  reason  is  there  for  excepting  this  particular  detail 
and  presuming  it  to  be  un-Suetonian  ?  Does  not  the  very 
word  aiehat  suggest  that  it  comes  from  an  author  within 
range  of  oral  tradition  from  Nisus?  As  Suetonius  would 
be.  The  story  of  the  laudes  Galli  is  reported  by  Servius, 
who  does  not  name  his  authority.  The  vindication  of  our 
four  lines  is  by  so  much  the  stronger  as  it  is  the  more 
circumstantial.  And  it  is  of  the  very  nature  of  the  case 
that  where  suppressed  verses  are  in  question,  school-editions 
and  popular  editions  will  not  show  them.^  Because  the 
suppressed  stanza  from  the  Elegy  is  not  in  the  Golden 
Treasury,  are  you  to  suppose  that  Mason  had  forged  it 
and  reckon  Palgrave  as  disbelieving  him  ?  That  interesting 
anecdote,  that  Virgil  once  pleaded  a  suit,  comes  to  us  on 
no  higher  authority  than  Donatus  alone.^  Are  we  to 
reject  it  ?  No :  it  is  to  be  accepted  because  it  is  agreeable 
to  what  we  know  of  Virgil  (Sen.  Controv,  iii,  Praef,  8), 
because  no  plausible  reason  can  be  assigned  for  a  fiction ; 
and  because  we  presume  Suetonius  behind  Donatus. 

Similarly  there  are  no  grounds  for  rejecting  a  piece  of 
tradition  warranted  by  the  word  of  a  scholar  who  may 
easily  have  spoken  with  many  of  Virgil's  contemporaries^ 

*  Cf.  another  example  in  Seneca  Rhetor,  Suas,  iii.  7. 

•  Donat.  Fi/a,  1.  48,  ed.  Brummer. 


22 


ILLE  EGO:  Virgil 


I 


No  grounds :  because  the  omis  probandi  lies  on  those  who 
refuse  to  accept  Nisus*  statement ;  and  the  attempt  to 
show  any  intrinsic  improbability  in  the  four  verses, 
whether  of  diction  or  ethos ^  has  collapsed  under  exami- 
nation. 

We  may  agree  with  Dryden,  or  agree  with  Spenser  and 
Milton  in  our  personal  taste ;  but  the  merit  of  the  verses 
is  neither  here  nor  there.  Varius'  editorial  judgement 
may  have  been  right  or  wrong :  by  a  lucky  accident,  we 
are  enabled,  for  once,  to  go  behind  it. 

4.  There  remains  only  the  witness  of  Propertius  (which 
Pierius  used  to  prove  the  genuineness  of  the  four  verses, 
ap.  Henry,  p.  13).     Because  (in  ii.  34)  Propertius  says  : 

*  qui  nunc  Aeiieae  Troiani  suscitat  arma 
iactaque  Lauinis  moenia  litoribus.* 

Mr.  R.  infers 

that  he  had  read  the  beginning  of  the  Aeneid  three 
years  before  it  passed  to  Virgil's  executors  for  publica- 
tion, and  it  began  with  the  passage  we  know  (p.  a8). 

The  inference  cannot  be  allowed.  Propertius  is  taking 
a  summary  view  of  Virgil's  poems  from  memoiy. 

{a)  He  touches  the  Bucolics  in  these  terms  (ii.  34.  67, 
68): 

*tu  canis  umbrosi  subter  pineta  Galaesi 

Thyrsin  et  attritis  Daphnin  arundjnibus.' 

Well :  there  is  no  Galaesus  in  the  Eclogues  as  we  have 
them.  Does  it  follow  that  Propertius  had  a  different 
text  ? 

{b)  Then  for  the  Georgics  he  has : 

*tu  canis  Ascraei  ueteris  praecepta  poetae, 
quo  seges  in  campo,  quo  uiret  uua  iugo*. 


and  Professor  RICHMOND 


23 


Does  it  follow  that  Books  iii  and  iv  were  unknown  to 
him  ?     His  allusion  only  bears  on  i  and  ii. 

(c)  Mr.  R.  infers  from  arma  that  Propertius  alludes  to 
arma  uirumque.  Why  is  it  not  equally  legitimate  to  infer 
that  he  had  in  his  ear  the  sound  of 

'ipse  deos  in  Dardana  suscitat  arma'  (Aen.  ii.  618) 

(a  phrase  of  almost  unexampled  rarity)  and  that 

*  iactaque  Lauinis^  moenia  litoribus* 

echoes 

*  promissa  Laiiini 
moenia^  (Aen,  i.  258). 

I  do  not  deny  an  allusion  to  Aen.  i.  2,  but  I  deny  that 
the  allusion  is  limited  to  that ;  and  there  is  the  warning  of 

*  subter  pineta  Galaesi ' 

staring  us  in  the  face  to  forbid  us  from  taking  an  imagi- 
native recollection  for  an  exact  statement.  But  even 
allowing  (per  impossibile)  that  Propertius  alludes  to 

*  arma  iiiriimque  cano ' 

and,  to  that  alone,  Mr.  R.'s  conclusion  remains,  for  all  that, 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  an  assumption.  For  the  envoi 
lines  might  be  there  all  the  time,  yet  since  the  envoi  lines 
do  not  indicate  the  matter  of  the  poem,  which  is  what  he 
is  concerned  to  suggest,  it  would  have  been  absurd  to 
quote  them.  The  opening  of  Paradise  Regained  illustrates 
the  point  aptly  enough :  suppose  a  poet  wishing  to  indicate 
the  various  Mil  tonic  poems  by  allusion :  of  the  three  first 
lines  of  the  final  epic : 

*  He  had  no  choice  but  to  use  the  contracted  form  for  Laiiiniis 
since  the  other  was  impossible  for  dactylic  verse. 


24 


ILLE  EGO 


*  I  who  erewhile  the  happy  Garden  sung 
By  one  man's  disobedience  lost,  now  sing 
Recovered  Paradise  to  all  mankind  . . . ' 

he  must  necessarily  neglect  the  first  two  as  inoperative, 
and  his  allusion  only  begin  to  apply  to  the  third. 

And  if  Propertius'  words  are  to  be  so  closely  pressed, 
why  are  we  not  entitled  to  gather  from  his 

'qui  NUNC  Aeneae' 
that  he  was  acquainted  with 

*AT  NUNC  horrentia  Martis 
arma '  ? 

I  submit,  then,  that  no  grounds  have  been  established 
for  supposing  that  Donatus  has  not  transmitted  to  us,  as 
usual,  what  he  found  in  Suetonius;  or  that  Suetonius 
refused  credit  to  Nisus'  statement;  or  that  Nisus*  state- 
ment involves  any  intrinsic  improbability.  And  it  has 
been  shown  that  none  of  the  objections  made  by  Mr.  R. 
on  the  score  of  diction  or  matter  are  solidly  founded.  No 
human  being  can  prove  the  truth  of  Nisus'  statement ;  but 
if  the  state  of  the  case  has  been  rightly  conceived,  since  the 
attempt  to  disprove  it  fails,  the  four  verses  remain  in 
possession.  The  reader  must  judge  how  the  method,  of 
which  that  attempt  was  proclaimed  an  example,  stands 
examination. 


Printed  in  England  at  the  Oxford  University  Press 


OXFORD   TRANSLATIONS 

Uniform  volumes,  sold  separately.    Foolscap  8vo  (7  x  4|).    4s.  6d.  net  each  volume. 

These  Oxford  Translations  have  not  been  written  to  order,  but  produced  for  the  delight 
of  the  writers  themselves  by  the  students  of  their  ^favourite  authors.  It  follows  that  no 
single  principle  of  translation  will  be  discoverable  in  the  series.  The  series  is  being 
gradually  lengthened,  and  both  popular  and  out-of-the-way  authors  are  admissible  to  it. 

THE  PARALLEL  PSALTER :  Prayer  Book  version  of  the  Psalms  and  a  new  version 
on  opposite  pages,  edited  by  S.  R.  Driver.    Second  edition. 

HESIOD,  translated  by  A.  W.  Mair. 

THE  FOUR  SOCRATIC  DIALOGUES  OF  PLATO ;  Euthyphro,  Apology,  Crito, 
Phaedo,  translated  by  B.  JowETT,  with  Preface  by  Edward  Caird. 

PLATO^S  REPUBLIC.    Jowett*s  translation.     Two  volumes.     (Also  on  Oxford  India 
paper,  complete  in  one  volume,  9s.  net.) 

DEMOSTHENES'  PUBLIC  SPEECHES,  translated  by  A.  W.  Pickard-Cambridge. 
Two  volumes. 

ARISTOTLE'S  POLITICS,  translated  by  B.  Jowett,  with  hitroduction  by  H.  W.  C. 
Davis. 

PLUTARCH.     Select  Essays,  translated  by  T.  G.  Tucker.     Two  volumes. 

EPICTETUS,  The  Discourses  and  Manual  with  Fragments  of  his  Writings,  translated  by 
P.  E.  Matheson.    Two  volumes. 

THE  WORKS  OF  LUCIAN,  translated  by  H.  W.  and  F.  G.  Fowler.     Four  volumes. 

LONGINUS  ON  THE  SUBLIME,  translated  by  A.  O.  Prickard. 

THE  MEDITATIONS  OF  MARCUS  AURELIUS  ANTONINUS,    translated    by 
John  Jackson,  with  an  introduction  by  Charles  Bigg. 

PHILOSTRATUS'  APOLLONIUS  OF  TYANA,   translated  by  J.   S.  Phillimore. 
Two  volumes. 

THE  LIFE  OF  PORPHYRY  OF  GAZA,  by  Mark  the  Deacon,  translated  by  G.  F.  Hill. 

LUCRETIUS,  translated  by  Cyril  Bailey. 

CAESAR'S  CIVIL  WAR,  translated  by  F.  P.  Long. 

CAESAR'S  GALLIC  WAR,  translated  by  F.  P.  Long. 

PROPERTIUS,  translated  by  J.  S.  Phillimore. 

HORACE,  translated  by  E.  C.  Wickham. 

VIRGIL,  trans,  by  John  Jackson.    (On  Oxford  India  paper,  6s.  net,) 

TACITUS'  HISTORIES,  translated  by  W.  Hamilton  Fyfe.    Two  volumes. 

TACITUS'  MINOR  WORKS,  translated  by  W.  Hamilton  Fyfe. 

STATIUS'  SILVAE,  translated  by  D.  A.  Slater. 

APULEIUS'  APOLOGIA  AND  FLORIDA,  translated  by  H.  E.  Butler. 

APULEIUS*  METAMORPHOSES,  translated  by  H.  E.  Butler.    Two  volumes. 

THE  LETTERS  OF  SIDONIUS,  translated  by  O.  M.  Dalton.    Two  volumes. 

ALFRED'S  BOETHIUS,  done  into  modern  English  by  W.  J.  Sedgefield. 

BEOWULF,  translated  by  John  Earle. 

ST.  BERNARD  DE  CONSIDERATIONE.  translated  by  G.  Lewis. 

DANTE'S  DIVINA  COMMEDIA,  translated  by  H.  F.  Tozer. 

DANTE'S  CONVIVIO,  translated  by  W.  W.  Jackson. 

MACHIAVELLPS  PRINCE,  translated  by  N.  H.  Thomson. 

HEINE'S  BUCH  DER  LEIDER,  translated  by  J.  Todhunter.    (Also  on  Oxford 
India  paper,  6s.  net. )  j 


